Iraqis continue to resist

In Day of Violence in Iraq, Attacks From All Directions
02.07.2003 [08:05]

Iraq’s plague of violence showed no signs of abating today, as six
American soldiers were wounded in two separate attacks, American
soldiers killed four Iraqis at checkpoints in Baghdad, and a huge
explosion killed at least five people at a mosque.

The gunfire and bombing seemed to come from all directions today,
leaving a trail of bitterness, confusion and hunger for revenge. The
death toll included militant anti-American Muslims and people who were
simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

American soldiers came under attack today by rocket-propelled grenades
in two incidents.

The United States Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said tonight that
three American soldiers had been wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade
about 8:45 a.m. today along Highway 8 in Baghdad. At 9:45 a.m., three
others were wounded in a similar attack, but Central Command has not
pinpointed the location. The wounded were treated at a combat support
hospital outside Baghdad.

There were reports here of an Army convoy struck by a rocket-propelled
grenade fired from a passing car. According to a witness on the
street, a man popped out of the sunroof of a sedan and fired at a
Humvee, which was engulfed in flames. Witnesses said they saw American
soldiers pull out two soldiers and an Iraqi civilian who were
seriously wounded, but it was not clear whether this was one of the
attacks that Central Command described.

There were at least two other attacks on military trucks today, but
information about casualties was unclear.

The total number of attacks on military vehicles is considerably
higher than the number of incidents announced by American officials.
Though often willing to confirm attacks when asked about them, Army
officers rarely announce incidents that do not result in American
casualties.

On Saturday night, for example, an Army convoy in Baghdad came under
fire but the rocket-propelled grenade hit an Iraqi truck. Army
officers who were on the scene said the truck’s Iraqi driver was badly
wounded and probably did not survive, but the incident was never
mentioned in military announcements.

In Tikrit today, Iraqi officials reported that unidentified assassins
had shot to death Abdullah Mahmoud al-Khattab, the chief of the Bani
al-Nasiri tribe of Saddam Hussein. The slaying, which occurred on
Sunday, was the latest in a series of assassinations carried out
against tribal leaders who wielded power under the previous
government.

In Falluja, 35 miles west of Baghdad, a blast of undetermined origins
ripped through the front office of Al Hassan mosque about 11 p.m. on
Monday, killing at least five men. Members of the mosque immediately
accused American forces of firing a missile at them, but Army officers
said the explosion appeared to have been generated from within the
mosque itself.

“Anyone who shoots an Iraqi in this town will have a reaction, a
random reaction,” he said. “It might be that other people are hurt,
innocent people. And after this, the families of those victims will
ask for revenge.”

The incidents have made anxious American soldiers even quicker about
pulling their triggers. Late this afternoon, soldiers at a checkpoint
in one of Baghdad’s wealthiest neighborhoods opened fire on three cars
and killed at least two Iraqis.

Confronted with maddeningly unpredictable attacks, and sweltering in
Baghdad’s scorching summer heat, American soldiers have become more
willing to shoot first and ask questions later.

In two separate incidents only an hour and a few hundred feet apart,
American soldiers manning checkpoints here fired on cars carrying
Iraqi civilians, killing at least two people and wounding several
others.

“People have used car bombs against us,” said Maj. Scott Slaten, a
public affairs officer with the First Armored Division. “People
running checkpoints are usually criminals, Baathists or people fleeing
crimes who didn’t think they would get caught.”

Witnesses said there were no signs ordering drivers to stop, and it
was easy to miss or misunderstand the soldiers.

“They killed innocent people for nothing,” said Selwain al-Naimi, who
witnessed the second incident.

The first occurred at 4:30 p.m., at a roundabout leading to a bridge
that provides entry to the grounds of the Republican Palace, which is
the headquarters for the American-led occupation here. Major Slaten
said a car rushed a checkpoint, causing a soldier to open fire with a
machine gun to deter what he perceived as a threat.

Two unidentified Iraqi civilians were killed. Major Slaten said a
search of their car yielded a loaded 9-millimeter pistol and a “large
amount” of Iraqi money.

An hour later “understanding these guys are a bit tense now,” Major
Slaten said an elderly man driving a Toyota approached a similar
checkpoint on a ramp leading to the same roundabout. Major Slaten said
the man was driving so fast that a soldier had to jump onto the curb
to get out of the way.

But witnesses said the car had stopped by the time at least one
soldier opened fire with a .50-caliber machine gun. The car’s
windshield was shattered, and the driver wounded by the glass, Major
Slaten said. No weapons were found in the car.

Witnesses said the hail of bullets also hit a car at the base of the
ramp that was trying to avoid the gunfire, injuring the occupants.

L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in charge of Iraq, has
repeatedly insisted that life is returning to normal, saying that open
markets are busier than ever and that women and children walk the
streets much more freely than they did right after major combat ended.

In Washington today, President Bush placed blame for much of the
violence in Iraq on small groups loyal to Saddam Hussein and his Baath
Party.

Source: The New York Times

Captain ! 2011-11-03 23:21:48

when the americans and brits came, many of the iraqi army (that were still
alive) simply took off their uniforms and blended into the local population.
now some of them are beginning to find their desire to fight again. it will
be a difficult and challenging task to route them out.

Petukhov 2011-11-28 01:27:48

why not if it is a credible source. Unlike you with Iraq I am not
affraid at all to hear bad news from Chechenia. Moreover often and
often good news are coming from there. For instance 95% of chechens
voted in referendum to be part of russia is not bad at all to start
with. BTW now chechen militia mostly is involved in elimination of
remaining bands in Chechenia and suffer battle casualties.
And no doubts the job will be done successfuly. Chechens are very good
fighters particularly if they backed by russian army staying behind.
BTW during last few weeks some 120 chechens have alredy laid down their
weapons and ask for amnesty. This week FSB says middle level commanders
started doing just the same.

As for Iraq if Iraqis will start real war (and it is close to that)
we will see pretty soon the same style of US retreat from Iraq as they
did from Saigon and Mogadishu with all their high-tek. Can you guess
whose companies will be invited to develope Iraq oil fields after that
US retreat? Right French and Russians. All indications for that.
Stuipid polititians in power of US, anger of local people, unlimited
light weapon reserves in hand of iraq people and last but not least
vital support from neighbour countries who are themself are under danger
of US invasion. Since clearly no US invasion is possible until Iraq
is fully pacified, Syria and Iran would do everything in their power
to provide enough fuel for the full scale partizan war in Iraq, their
the only security guarantee. And only blind cannot see that US has
already lost. The question is only how more amrican and british lives
it take before everybody would understand that? Russian experts say no
less than 2000 which is US pain barrier Any suggestions on that estimate?

Michael

Petukhov 2011-11-28 01:29:06

With that kind of rhetoric (see below)? Impossible! Who said
he had diplomatic background? He must be totaly mad.

“… We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and
we will capture or… kill them until we have imposed law and
order on this country,” he declared at the weekend. “We dominate
the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country. …”

Zzbunker 2011-11-28 01:29:26

Lets hear what the Russians and Chechnyas are fighting with first.
The last we heard it was some sort of gas rather than guns.

Stephen hardin 2011-11-28 01:29:47

Hey 99-100% of Iraqis voted for Saddam Hussein last election.

I’m certain you’re hoping such a development occurs Michael.

Absolutely! It’s even possible Saddam could return to power! He’s
apparently still alive, has billions of dollars, and a sizeable group of
ruthless people who would be happy to see his return.

Perhaps Russia and France would be happy to see the old boy back, and what
he does to other Iraqis won’t concern them a bit!

Syria and Iran were always going to play spoiler to any US intervention in
Iraq. That was always as given. It was always clear the democratization
of Iraq would be a far more difficult task than defeating the Iraqi Army.

This kind of stuff takes time. It’s not for the impatient. It’s not for
the faint of heart.

The Iraqis taking part in this “guerrila war” of yours are most likely
Baathists who would like Saddam back, or Iranian Islamic Republic lovers,
or just anti-US spoilers (Syria). None of them really have much to offer
the Iraqi people (h***, even Iranians don’t like an Islamic Republic).

Only you and your Soviet cohorts, and possibly French, hoping for return of
large contracts without US/UK competition in the area.

And of course those people who are so anti-Bush or anti-American that they
would gladly see a Saddam or Hitler or Stalin win just to see a US failure.

Talk about stupid politics!

SMH

Ragnar 2011-11-28 01:30:48

news:…

It was from your own country. Is that credible?

95%? Lets see, according to census estimates Chechnya has approx 800,000
people. Of that, nearly 200,000 are under 16 years old and are thus not
eligilbe to vote. Since 95% of 800,000 is 760,000 it seems that someone
imported a few voters from outside.

Rostyslaw j. l 2011-11-28 01:30:59

Yes and one needs only to remember an old communist principle enunciated
by Stalin (?). It doesn’t matter how they vote. It only matters Who
reports the official results. (or something similar)

Captain ! 2011-11-28 01:33:00

no doubt. besides, iraq is a much better theatre to draw america’s enemies
out of the woodwork for a fight than the homeland is.

Petukhov 2011-11-28 01:35:42

This number is wrong. There was official population census >1 mil.

95% of those who came to vote.

Michael

Petukhov 2011-11-28 01:35:51

and what? The choice is always yes or no to chechen constitution
where chechenya is essential part of russia. Michael

Livat b. udoka 2011-12-06 07:40:36

news:<3F03759F.EB4D4C49@bellsouth.net>…

news:…

Why is Chechnya an essential part of Russia?

Livat b. udoka 2011-12-06 07:40:40

It was always funny when you watched all those people cheering for Saddam on
those rigged TV appearances. You could tell from the body language that it was acting.

Michael is a raving Russian nationalist whose ideas are leftover from the
Soviet era. He is not too bright when it comes to politics and people. Iraq
is not Viet Nam, not topographically, not militarily, not politically. Going
into Somalia was a mistake just as going into Liberia will be a mistake.
Africa is a mess and it’s just not worth fixing.

The US has already given Russia assurances that it will not block its old
contracts. That doesn’t mean the new Iraqi gov will honor them though. I
haven’t heard of any French or Russia company getting any recovery work.

Exactly correct. France and Russia would be quite happy to take the money no
matter what else is happening to the Iraqi commoner.

Yeah. Syria has gotten the message. Being off their east coast and on their
western border, the US could do a pretty good job of shutting down Syria.
They’ve already lost out on 40% of their oil after the US special ops blew
up the pipeline.

Iran has mounting internal problems. If the ayatollahs don’t watch out,
they’ll get the Mussolini treatment.

You are talking about Michael. He’s almost as hateful as kirill.

Rostyslaw j. l 2011-12-06 07:43:37

Ok. 🙂 Let’s try again !
What was the choice, in that referendum, which the voters rejected?
i.e. the option that got only 5% of the vote?
🙂 🙂 🙂 — Rostyk

Petukhov 2011-12-09 12:43:38

The same reason why Texas is essential part of US. Michael

Livat b. udoka 2011-12-09 12:43:56

news:…

Peter skelton 2011-12-09 12:44:01

On 4 Jul 2003 02:12:07 -0700, petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael

Texas is an essential part of the US because it wants to be part
of the US. For a time it had the uniltateral right to leave.

Perhaps a different example would be appropriate.
____

Peter Skelton

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-09 12:44:15

:On 4 Jul 2003 02:12:07 -0700, petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael :Petukhov) wrote: :
:>> Why is Chechnya an essential part of Russia?
:>
:>The same reason why Texas is essential part of US.
:
:Texas is an essential part of the US because it wants to be part
:of the US. For a time it had the uniltateral right to leave.

When I was in Texas, they were apparently still teaching that. Texas
was unique because of the conditions under which it became part of the
US.

:Perhaps a different example would be appropriate.

Perhaps South Carolina?

—
“Nekubi o kaite was ikenai”
[“It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man.”]
— Admiral Yamamoto

Vince branniga 2011-12-09 12:44:18

texas urban legend

Vince

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-09 12:44:36

:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>Peter Skelton wrote:
:>
:>:On 4 Jul 2003 02:12:07 -0700, petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
:>:Petukhov) wrote:
:>:
:>:>> Why is Chechnya an essential part of Russia?
:>:>
:>:>The same reason why Texas is essential part of US.
:>:
:>:Texas is an essential part of the US because it wants to be part
:>:of the US. For a time it had the uniltateral right to leave.
:>
:>When I was in Texas, they were apparently still teaching that. Texas
:>was unique because of the conditions under which it became part of the
:>US.
:>
:>
:texas urban legend

And then he has to ruin it by posting it twice.

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-09 12:44:53

:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:
:>:>Peter Skelton wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:On 4 Jul 2003 02:12:07 -0700, petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
:>:>:Petukhov) wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>> Why is Chechnya an essential part of Russia?
:>:>:>
:>:>:>The same reason why Texas is essential part of US.
:>:>:
:>:>:Texas is an essential part of the US because it wants to be part
:>:>:of the US. For a time it had the uniltateral right to leave.
:>:>
:>:>When I was in Texas, they were apparently still teaching that. Texas
:>:>was unique because of the conditions under which it became part of the
:>:>US.
:>:>
:>:>
:>:texas urban legend
:>
:>And then he has to ruin it by posting it twice.
:>
:No its two separate urban legends one is the “right to leave” legend
: (posted by peter) the second is that it came in under unique
:conditions. (posted by yourself)

Ok, then you were right the first time and wrong the second time. Did
you go look at the URL I posted? How many other States retain the
right to spin off 4 other States from their territory whenever they
please?

—
“Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory.”
–G. Behn

Tmoliver 2011-12-09 12:45:03

Vince Brannigan iterated…..

There’s a bit of uniqueness to Texas’s entry, which
affirmed the issue of “public lands” in its own right as a
Republic, title to those lands remained with Texas, unlike the
situation in other states where the US already owned the public
lands.

Then there’s the Tideland’s issue, subject to contradictory
court decisions and legislative actions. I can’t remember all
the issues, but a couple of them were settled granting Texas
“unique” status (and had something to do with support for
Eisenhower who campaigned on the issue down here in ’52).

TMO

Vince branniga 2011-12-09 12:45:56

That is part of urban legend #2. unlike some others it has a kernel of
historical fact, but no legal validity.

This is called the Equal footing doctrine

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911): “The power of Congress in respect
to the admission of new states is found in the 3d section of the 4th
article of the Constitution. That provision is that, ‘new states may be
admitted by the Congress into this Union.’ The only expressed
restriction upon this power is that no new state shall be formed within
the jurisdiction of any other state, nor by the junction of two or more
states, or parts of states, without the consent of such states, as well
as of the Congress. “But what is this power? It is not to admit
political organizations which are less or greater, or different in
dignity or power, from those political entities which constitute the
Union. It is, as strongly put by counsel, a ‘power to admit states.’

The definition of ‘a state’ is found in the powers possessed by the
original states which adopted the Constitution,-a definition emphasized
by the terms employed in all subsequent acts of Congress admitting new
states into the Union. The first two states admitted into the Union were
the states of Vermont and Kentucky, one as of March 4, 1791, and the
other as of June 1, 1792. No terms or conditions were exacted from
either. Each act declares that the state is admitted ‘as a new and
entire member of the United States of America.’ 1 Stat. at L. 191, 189,
chaps. 7, 4. Emphatic and significant as is the phrase admitted as ‘an
entire member,’ even stronger was the declaration upon the admission in
1796 of Tennessee [1 Stat. at L. 491, chap. 47] as the third new state,
it being declared to be ‘one of the United States of America,’ ‘on an
equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever,’-
phraseology which has ever since been substantially followed in
admission acts, concluding with the Oklahoma act, which declares that
Oklahoma shall be admitted ‘on an equal footing with the original states.’

“The power is to admit ‘new states into this Union.’

‘This Union’ was and is a union of states, equal in power, dignity, and
authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.To maintain
otherwise would be to say that the Union, through the power of Congress
to admit new states, might come to be a union of states unequal in
power, as including states whose powers were restricted only by the
Constitution, with others whose powers had been further restricted by an
act of Congress accepted as a condition of admission. Thus it would
result, first, that the powers of Congress would not be defined by the
Constitution alone, but in respect to new states, enlarged or restricted
by the conditions imposed upon new states by its own legislation
admitting them into the Union; and, second, that such new states might
not exercise all of the powers which had not been delegated by the
Constitution, but only such as had not been further bargained away as
conditions of admission.

“The argument that Congress derives from the duty of ‘guaranteeing to
each state in this Union a republican form of government,’ power to
impose restrictions upon a new state which deprive it of equality with
other members of the Union, has no merit. It may imply the duty of such
new state to provide itself with such state government, and impose upon
Congress the duty of seeing that such form is not changed to one
anti-republican,-Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 174, 22 L. ed. 627,
630,-but it obviously does not confer power to admit a new state which
shall be any less a state than those which compose the Union.”

thats whey its urban legend
Vince ..

Vince branniga 2011-12-09 12:45:58

no differnt from maryland or any otehr state not formed out of federal lands.

it has no more or less power as a state than any other states. States
vary in their claims or relinquishment of claims to “public land” but
all states are equal in legal power and noting congreess can do in
admitting them can change that power. I posted the cite in another reply

Vince

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-13 01:06:19

:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:
:>:>Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>:>
:>:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:>:
:>:>:>Peter Skelton wrote:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>:On 4 Jul 2003 02:12:07 -0700, petukhov@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
:>:>:>:Petukhov) wrote:
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:>> Why is Chechnya an essential part of Russia?
:>:>:>:>
:>:>:>:>The same reason why Texas is essential part of US.
:>:>:>:
:>:>:>:Texas is an essential part of the US because it wants to be part
:>:>:>:of the US. For a time it had the uniltateral right to leave.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>When I was in Texas, they were apparently still teaching that. Texas
:>:>:>was unique because of the conditions under which it became part of the
:>:>:>US.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>
:>:>:texas urban legend
:>:>
:>:>And then he has to ruin it by posting it twice.
:>:>
:>:No its two separate urban legends one is the “right to leave” legend
:>: (posted by peter) the second is that it came in under unique
:>:conditions. (posted by yourself)
:>
:>Ok, then you were right the first time and wrong the second time. Did
:>you go look at the URL I posted? How many other States retain the
:>right to spin off 4 other States from their territory whenever they
:>please?
:
:That is part of urban legend #2. unlike some others it has a kernel of
:historical fact, but no legal validity.

So your ‘legal’ position is that legal agreements between sovereign
states (which is what the annexation agreement amounted to) have no
legal validity?

A most contorted and peculiar world you live in, Vince.
:> Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union;
:> but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction
:> of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or
:> more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the
:> legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

And Congress had already given its consent in the agreement under
which Texas was annexed, so all it takes is the Texas legislature to
agree.

[Extraneous volume elided, as it only limits the ability of the
central government to do precisely what Lincoln did to Virginia during
the Late Unpleasantness Between The States. So much for legality.]

—
“I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
to say it.”
— Voltaire

Rostyslaw j. l 2011-12-13 01:06:37

Ok. 🙂 Let’s try again!
What was the position vis a vis the Russian federated
state (RSFS ?) of Ichkeria, chechnia, that rejecting the
constitution would have implied ?

Vince branniga 2011-12-13 01:06:48

When they are ultra vires, yes. Congres did nto have the power to make
the agreement. thats why I posted the case.

Its called the Constitution

They cant. Into this union deals with forming or erecting a state
within asnother state. unteil texas is admitted, its not a state it is,
as you point out a sovereign country. you can’t become a state “on
conditions. you either are a “state” or you are not. if you are, then
congress and the state can come to an agreement. .

This issue comes up all the time on DC statehood. Congress can make DC
a state, but cant make it any other kind of state than the 50 who are
already there.

Vince

Vince branniga 2011-12-13 01:06:57

I mean exactly that and so did the Su[preme Court if the pwoer is not
one vested in Congress. Congress does not have the unilateral power to
create states, or to admit a state on anythignn but “equal footings” Vince

COYLE v. SMITH, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)

221 U.S. 559

Decided May 29, 1911.

Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:

The question, then, comes to this: Can a state be placed upon a plane of
inequality with its sister states in the Union if the Congress chooses
to impose conditions which so operate, at the time of its admission? The
argument is, that while Congress may not deprive a state of any power
which it possesses, it may, as a condition to the admission of a new
state, constitutionally restrict its authority, to the extent, at least,
of suspending its powers for a definite time in respect to the location
of its seat of government……

The power of Congress in respect to the admission of new states is found
in the 3d section of the 4th article of the Constitution. That provision
is that, ‘new states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.’
The only expressed restriction upon this power is that no new state
shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor by the
junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent
of such states, as well as of the Congress.

But what is this power? It is not to admit political organizations which
are less or greater, or different in dignity or power, from those
political entities which constitute the Union. It is, as strongly put by
counsel, a ‘power to admit states.’……

We come now to the question as to whether there is anything in the
decisions of this court which sanctions the claim that Congress may, by
the imposition of conditions in an enabling act, deprive a new state of
any of those attributes essential to its equality in dignity and power
with other states. …..

So far as this court has found occasion to advert to the effect of
enabling acts as affirmative legislation affecting the power of new
states after admission, there is to be found no sanction for the
contention that any state may be deprived of any of the power
constitutionally possessed by other states, as states, by reason of the
terms in which the acts admitting them to the Union have been framed…..

The court held that the stipulation in the act under which Alabama was
admitted to the Union, that the people of the proposed states ‘forever
disclaim all rights and title to the waste or unappropriated lands lying
within the said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the
sole and entire disposition of the United States,’ cannot operate as a
contract between the parties…….

The supposed compact relied on by the counsel for the plaintiffs
conferred no authority, therefore, on Congress to pass the act
granting to the plaintiffs the land in controversy.’

‘Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction
over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common
law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it before she ceded
it to the United States. To maintain any other doctrine is to deny
that Alabama has been admitted into the Union on an equal footing
with the original states, the Constitution, laws, and compact to
the contrary notwithstanding.’

The plain deduction from this case is that when a new state is admitted
into the Union, it is so admitted with all of the powers of sovereignty
and jurisdiction which pertain to the original states, and that such
powers may not be constitutionally diminished, impaired, or shorn away
by any conditions, compacts, or stipulations embraced in the act under
which the new state came into the Union, which would not be valid and
effectual if the subject of congressional legislation after admission.

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-13 01:07:29

:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>So your ‘legal’ position is that legal agreements between sovereign
:>states (which is what the annexation agreement amounted to) have no
:>legal validity?
:>
:>A most contorted and peculiar world you live in, Vince.
:
:I mean exactly that and so did the Su[preme Court if the pwoer is not
:one vested in Congress. Congress does not have the unilateral power to
:create states, or to admit a state on anythignn but “equal footings”

So that would mean that the contract that led to the annexation of
Texas must be null and void, as it was not, by your claims, a legal
agreement. If one of the parties to an agreement cannot legally make
that agreement, then the agreement is by definition null and void.

But Congress DOES have the power to permit States to approve the
creation of other States from their own territory, which is what they
did in the case of Texas as part of the Annexation Order. So the
Annexation Order is legal and Texas has the right to create four more
States out of its own territory at any time it chooses to do so.

: COYLE v. SMITH, 221 U.S. 559 (1911)
:
:221 U.S. 559

[Elided, as the decision is not germane to what Vince is claiming it
proves. Training time for you, vince. Volume does not constitute
proof.]

—
“So many women. So little charm.”

— Donna, to Josh; The West Wing

Vince branniga 2011-12-13 01:07:33

but that does nto affect other arrangements such as becomeing a state.

no it was not a states at the time so they cant.

Im licensed to practice law in Md and DC. Where are you licensed?

Vince

Vince branniga 2011-12-13 01:07:38

no it siimply mens that any thign other than equal footing is null and void

“To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been
admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states,
the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding. .
.. . [T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in
controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the
Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made
between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.”

note that no compact can “enlarge” the rights of a state, which disposes
of yoru other claims.

viince

Tmoliver 2011-12-13 01:08:42

Vince Brannigan iterated…..

I agreed with your post, and the only significant point of
difference was that unlike most if not all states joining after
the original 13 in which the “public lands” were federal
property, since the federal government “owned” the land before a
government (other than territorial) was established, those
states owned no “public lands” except those ceded or sold to
them by the government or otherside acquited after statehood.

Did any of the 13 original “states” have public lands which they
held after Constutional ratification or earlier assumption of
title by the US?

Legally, it would appear that after the first 13, no territory
or other possession achieving statehood could have owned any
public land (although certainly incorporated/organized
communities might have claims to common/township lands).

I recall no public lands claim on behalf or the Bear Republic,
officially at least unrecognized in status by the US. That left
Texas, with lots of it.

Then there’s that Three Leagues/Three Miles dispute,
adjudicated one way in court, but apparently altered at some
point.

TMO

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-13 08:20:33

:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:
:>:>So your ‘legal’ position is that legal agreements between sovereign
:>:>states (which is what the annexation agreement amounted to) have no
:>:>legal validity?
:>:>
:>:>A most contorted and peculiar world you live in, Vince.
:>:
:>:I mean exactly that and so did the Su[preme Court if the pwoer is not
:>:one vested in Congress. Congress does not have the unilateral power to
:>:create states, or to admit a state on anythignn but “equal footings”
:>
:>So that would mean that the contract that led to the annexation of
:>Texas must be null and void, as it was not, by your claims, a legal
:>agreement. If one of the parties to an agreement cannot legally make
:>that agreement, then the agreement is by definition null and void.
:
:but that does nto affect other arrangements such as becomeing a state.

So your position is that if I have someone under the age of 18
contract to buy a car from you, they take delivery of the car and then
say, “Oops. I’m under 18. I’m not allowed to enter into that sort of
agreement”, they get to keep the car?

Pretty shoddy interpretation of contract law, Vince.
:>But Congress DOES have the power to permit States to approve the
:>creation of other States from their own territory, which is what they
:>did in the case of Texas as part of the Annexation Order.
:
:no it was not a states at the time so they cant.

Permission granted in advance, so they can.
:> So the
:>Annexation Order is legal and Texas has the right to create four more
:>States out of its own territory at any time it chooses to do so.
:>oof.]
:>
:Im licensed to practice law in Md and DC. Where are you licensed?

Licensure is irrelevant to the ability to read plain English. In
fact, given the current example, licensure would seem to be in direct
correlation to distortion of what’s written.

—
“Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory.”
–G. Behn

Fred j. mccall 2011-12-13 08:20:36

:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: :
:>Vince Brannigan wrote:
:>
:>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>:
:>:>So your ‘legal’ position is that legal agreements between sovereign
:>:>states (which is what the annexation agreement amounted to) have no
:>:>legal validity?
:>:>
:>:>A most contorted and peculiar world you live in, Vince.
:>:
:>:I mean exactly that and so did the Su[preme Court if the pwoer is not
:>:one vested in Congress. Congress does not have the unilateral power to
:>:create states, or to admit a state on anythignn but “equal footings”
:>
:>So that would mean that the contract that led to the annexation of
:>Texas must be null and void, as it was not, by your claims, a legal
:>agreement. If one of the parties to an agreement cannot legally make
:>that agreement, then the agreement is by definition null and void.
:
:no it siimply mens that any thign other than equal footing is null and void

And it is an equal footing. Other States can also create States from
their own territory, given the necessary Federal permission.

:note that no compact can “enlarge” the rights of a state, which disposes
:of yoru other claims.

Note that the compact between the United States and the Republic of
Texas DOES NOT “enlarge” the rights of a State, so your voluminous
attempts to bury the issue dispose of nothing. Go back to that
Constitution thingy. You’ll discover that States may be created from
within the boundaries of other States, providing both the Federal
government and the State being divided agree. Texas got that
permission on the day they became a State.

Note that Texas would never actually DO this, so the point is moot.
However, nothing you’ve said demonstrates that they do not have the
right to do so.

Now, given the Constitutional prohibitions, explain West Virginia.

—
“Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory.”
–G. Behn

Vince branniga 2011-12-16 08:48:13

no, its more like you sign a piece of paper with a woman that says she
will have an abortion if she marries you (See jack kent cooke late owner
of the washing redskins. the marriage is still valid even if the
contract isn’t. states are not admitted into the union by contract.

its not a contract. its public law, not private law.

nonsense. its called legal capacity. sort of llike giving a child up
for adoption you can’t do it before a child is born. You can’t
contract to do it.

im happy to explain the law to you. the whole point of the law is that
its not plain english to be “read” its doctrine to be analyzed. In

Laws are gnernarelly written by those familiar wiht how the legal system
uses the language.
I spend a lot of time teaching engieers that what they see when they
read the laered through theri perceptions.

your use of the term contract is indicative. a contract is simply an
greement that the law will enforce. if the law wont enforce it , its an
agreement but not a contract. soem agreements can mature into contracts,
some can’t.

Vince

Vince branniga 2011-12-16 08:48:22

you are suggesting that TExas was admitted with that right, which woudl
mean it was nto admittted on an equal footing. Teh court says that alls
tates are admitted on an equal ffoting. so Texas like all other states
woul have to get permission after admission. That is what equal footing means.

nonsense. you r claim was that TExas came in wiht a right that other
states do not have. that woudl “enlarge their rights.

Go back to that

It was not a state, so the provision odes not apply. Congres does not
have the power to admit a state on such terms.

When the republic of texas became the ste of texas some people might
have thought such an agreemnt was valid. Later decisions made it clear
that it was not.

The Wheeling convention, composed of loyalists largely from western pre
war virginai was recognized by the federal government as the government
of virginia for constituional purposes